In the 5th article of a 7 part series, I take a look at how Rafa Benitez's transfer spending between 2004 and 2009 compares to Spurs' spending over the same period. SERIES GOAL

* To accurately report the gross/net spend of the UK's top clubs since 2004.

* To dispel the myth, exaggeration and misinformation surrounding the transfer spending of the UK's top clubs.

* To finally bring clarity and accuracy to this area so that future debates about transfer spending can be based in fact, not generalisation and biased opinion.

NOTES

* Liverpool and Spurs have slightly different accounting years:

Liverpool: 31 July - 31 JulySpurs: 30 June - 30 June

* I have omitted transfer activity (both teams) for accounting year 2009-10 as neither clubs' accounts for that year are available until 2011. Consequently, there is no way to be 100% sure about the figures.

* The transfer of Xabi Alonso took place after the 2008 accounting deadline, which is why it's not included here. I will update the transfer spending table when the 2009-10 accounts are released.

* This series is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez. The comparisons to be undertaken are regularly requested by visitors to this site.

* These stats have never been compiled before online.

Rafa BENITEZ vs. SPURS Managers 2004-2009

Like Chelsea, Spurs' figures make a mockery of the lame net-spend argument used by many football fans (I'm talking about how the argument is used generally, not specifically by those who support Rafa Benitez):

* Spurs have a a much higher net spend over 5 years than Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea AND Manchester United.

* According to the net-spend cult, this apparently means that Spurs must be the most successful team in the Premier League (!). After all, they spent more money than Chelsea and Man United so it it makes logical sense, right?

Obviously WRONG.

There is no persuasive correlation between net-spend and football success. It's pure fantasy - an excuse dreamed up by desperate football fans to try and justify ineffective performance in the transfer market. The net spend argument is, without doubt, the most ludicrous football 'theory' I've ever come across. And despite the fact it keeps being discredited, the net-spend cult persist with their delusion that it is the ultimate indicator of football/transfer success.

I like the figures, but im not sure if im taking you up wrong. but my understanding of the great debate relating to net spend being used in defence of Rafa is for when he is lambasted for spending over £250 million in 5 years, so why is the squad so short of players ?!?! but not taking into account, he has also had to sell in order to buy and the grand total of player sales is £194.80, meaning Rafa is balancing the books by spending just over £10mil of signings per year. with even lowly spurs outspending Liverpool by at least double this over 5 seasons.

any wonder that Spurs have leapt into 4th spot and City just behind ? and of course, football being football Aston Villa are a surprise package this season.

You're spot on, DRP, and you've proved my point about the difference between gross/net spend: Successful squads have players who COST the most.

Cost = gross spend, i.e. how much money the club paid *at the time* for a player.

How much did Real Madrid pay for Ronaldo? They paid 80m. That is how much he cost. If in 4 years, they sell him for 40m, it doesn't change the fact that he *originally* cost 80m; that money exists - it is how much Man United received.

This is point that the net-spend cult just don't get.

Take the Chelsea example: Their average net spend between 2004-09 is only 2m higher than Liverpool's. Chelsea have spent a shedload more money though, which perhaps explains why they've won 3 titles in the last 6 years. You can only *see* the value of their squad and the amount of money they've spent by looking at gross spend though. not net spend.

arsenal are the only top team that have NOT spent big in the benitez era, and its fair to say that arsenal are a shadow of what they were only a few seasons ago - Wenger has taken his team from "invincible" champions in 2003 to hanging on for 3rd or 4th in the last few seasons...(in fairness, they've funded a stadium in that time)

I think the debate comes down to what you expect to get for your money. Aside from 9/10 i was relatively happy with RBs/LFCs progress. But it is not a simple situation at LFC . Even if you leave aside the "cashflow problems", the internal politics must be having a negative influence at the club.

I think the point here is that whichever way you look at it the scouting/youth system of our beloved club is non existent. Apart from 4-5 solid buys (and great ones they were) we have never been able to unearth a GEM. When is the last time yiu said , "hey that guy cots us 3M and look at him go..."For a team looking for english players how did we miss adam johnson (8M i think to man city). We had problems on the wings and he would have been a good buy. The money has been squandered. I agree with Janie Net Spend is an accounting based calculation and not a transfer yardstick. Rafa has bought a host of failures, i dont know where our scouts have been for the last 5 years, maybe we should get some from Arsenal !!!

Why is it that everyone who has an opposing view to you is a member of a cult? i.e the net spend cult.You have a view on gross spend, others have one on net. It doesn't make them a member of a cult anymore than you. You say this site is opposed to groupthink yet you seem to pidgeonhole everyone with an opposing view.In terms of net/gross spend. Yes, that money has been spent - which backs up your argument on gross. However, selling players on at profit to enable you to buy other more expensive players also backs net spend. But you blindly will not take this into consideration.Let's look at an example which isn't Liverpool so that I am not labelled pro Benitez or boxed in some other way.Utd sold Ronaldo last year for £80million. They lost one of the top players in the world. They re-invested more than £20m in the playing staff including the purchase of Valencia, which was seen a replacement for Ronaldo.Your perspective is to state that Utd spent money last year and, as a result, should have shown improvement in the squad (over £20million after all). Whereas anyone with a clue about football would understand that the team weakened (as proven irrefutably by their regression). Why did it weaken, because they didn't replace like with like? And how do we know this, because they were some £60million in credit.However, you would focus on the point that they spent £20million.</span>

Why is it that everyone who has an opposing view to you is a member of a cult? i.e the net spend cult.You have a view on gross spend, others have one on net. It doesn't make them a member of a cult anymore than you. You say this site is opposed to groupthink yet you seem to pidgeonhole everyone with an opposing view.In terms of net/gross spend. Yes, that money has been spent - which backs up your argument on gross. However, selling players on at profit to enable you to buy other more expensive players also backs net spend. But you blindly will not take this into consideration.Let's look at an example which isn't Liverpool so that I am not labelled pro Benitez or boxed in some other way.Utd sold Ronaldo last year for £80million. They lost one of the top players in the world. They re-invested more than £20m in the playing staff including the purchase of Valencia, which was seen a replacement for Ronaldo.Your perspective is to state that Utd spent money last year and, as a result, should have shown improvement in the squad (over £20million after all). Whereas anyone with a clue about football would understand that the team weakened (as proven irrefutably by their regression). Why did it weaken, because they didn't replace like with like? And how do we know this, because they were some £60million in credit.However, you would focus on the point that they spent £20million.</span>

Why is it that everyone who has an opposing view to you is a member of a cult? i.e the net spend cult.You have a view on gross spend, others have one on net. It doesn't make them a member of a cult anymore than you. You say this site is opposed to groupthink yet you seem to pidgeonhole everyone with an opposing view.In terms of net/gross spend. Yes, that money has been spent - which backs up your argument on gross. However, selling players on at profit to enable you to buy other more expensive players also backs net spend. But you blindly will not take this into consideration.Let's look at an example which isn't Liverpool so that I am not labelled pro Benitez or boxed in some other way.Utd sold Ronaldo last year for £80million. They lost one of the top players in the world. They re-invested more than £20m in the playing staff including the purchase of Valencia, which was seen a replacement for Ronaldo.Your perspective is to state that Utd spent money last year and, as a result, should have shown improvement in the squad (over £20million after all). Whereas anyone with a clue about football would understand that the team weakened (as proven irrefutably by their regression). Why did it weaken, because they didn't replace like with like? And how do we know this, because they were some £60million in credit.However, you would focus on the point that they spent £20million.</span>

Why is it that everyone who has an opposing view to you is a member of a cult? i.e the net spend cult.You have a view on gross spend, others have one on net. It doesn't make them a member of a cult anymore than you. You say this site is opposed to groupthink yet you seem to pidgeonhole everyone with an opposing view.In terms of net/gross spend. Yes, that money has been spent - which backs up your argument on gross. However, selling players on at profit to enable you to buy other more expensive players also backs net spend. But you blindly will not take this into consideration.Let's look at an example which isn't Liverpool so that I am not labelled pro Benitez or boxed in some other way.Utd sold Ronaldo last year for £80million. They lost one of the top players in the world. They re-invested more than £20m in the playing staff including the purchase of Valencia, which was seen a replacement for Ronaldo.Your perspective is to state that Utd spent money last year and, as a result, should have shown improvement in the squad (over £20million after all). Whereas anyone with a clue about football would understand that the team weakened (as proven irrefutably by their regression). Why did it weaken, because they didn't replace like with like? And how do we know this, because they were some £60million in credit.However, you would focus on the point that they spent £20million.</span>

Whilst I've no doubt these figures are correct and accurate, what's the point? This is classless stooping to their level. What matters is the results in football matches, nothing else matters. It's a bit embarrassing comparing us to another team because it shows we're clutching for straws and reasons to show 'we're better than you'. Spurs? Who are they?

Another example, Man Utd sing umpteen songs about us every single match. Every single match. I've never ever known us to ever sing a song about them, we wouldn't give them the pleasure. I think that shows our class. Whilst your post does not.

The point of these articles is not have a go at one team or another; it's about putting accurate information out there; information that people want to know about. It also allows people to be better informed about the level of transfer spending at the country's top clubs.

I can't remember where I read it but up until when RB got his new contract (and therefore more control at youth level) LFC apparently had several dozen part-time amateur scouts on their books! Now there are, I think, a dozen or so professionals instead.

Characteristic of a cult: Obsessive, especially devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

It's nothing to do with disagreeing with me - those fans who blindly cling onto net spend as some kind of financial life-raft *and* completely ignore the reality of transfer spending despite countless examples proving that Gross spend is more important are, in my view, part of the net-spend cult. And I make no apology for labelling them as such. They deserve derision because they are not being intellectually honest; they are twisting the concept of net-spend because they are blindly devoted to a manager, i.e. prioritising the individual over the club.

You have not given a fair acount of my view on gross/net spend.

I can accept that United lost a top player, but the idea that they were 'weakened' is not a foregone conclusion. You can only decide if they were weakened based on analysis of their seaso *after* Ronaldo left.

Last season: they didn't win the league but in the previous three they did. Is that because of Ronaldo? Debatable. I don't think so. Football is not about one man; it is a team game. United still came close to winning the title.

In terms of United's spending: I would look at gross spend, not net spend, because Gross tells you the true value of the squad over a number of years, or within one year.

The point of these articles is not have a go at one team or another; it's about putting accurate information out there; information that people want to know about. It also allows people to be better informed about the level of transfer spending at the country's top clubs.

Let me have another crack at this with an extreme example to illustrate the point:

Team A spends £500m on players over three years in an attempt to win the league.

In year four, for whatever reason you’d like to imagine, Team A has to sell its entire ‘first eleven’. Team A recoups the £500m it spent in the first three years from these sales.

Should Team A therefore be expected to compete for the Championship because its gross spend over the last four years is £500m, and therefore more than anyone else?

Of course not. It barely has any players left.

Now while this IS an extreme example, if you can accept the fact that it is not practical for Team A to be competing with the big boys any more, it is entirely logical to presume that you would also accept the fact that if these figures were less dramatic, there would still be an effect (albeit a less dramatic one) on Team A’s ability to compete.

This seems abundantly clear to me, and tbh I feel a bit condescending writing it, but for some reason it still needs to be said. Does this not seem clear to to everyone else?

Let me have another crack at this with an extreme example to illustrate the point:

Team A spends £500m on players over three years in an attempt to win the league.

In year four, for whatever reason you’d like to imagine, Team A has to sell its entire ‘first eleven’. Team A recoups the £500m it spent in the first three years from these sales.

Should Team A therefore be expected to compete for the Championship because its gross spend over the last four years is £500m, and therefore more than anyone else?

Of course not. It barely has any players left.

Now while this IS an extreme example, if you can accept the fact that it is not practical for Team A to be competing with the big boys any more, it is entirely logical to presume that you would also accept the fact that if these figures were less dramatic, there would still be an effect (albeit a less dramatic one) on Team A’s ability to compete.

This seems abundantly clear to me, and tbh I feel a bit condescending writing it, but for some reason it still needs to be said. Does this not seem clear to to everyone else?

Since you mentioned chelsea I'm still wondering were did they recouped the money from in the year 2004 - 2005 since there were no high profile player sales?? I checked loads of websites and there are no players mentioned for a high fee. Almost all of them were loaned or free transfers!! Could it be that they are including other incomes??

And before you start telling that other websites are not correct bla bla bla. I'm not stupid so if I have a look at the players they sold I know which one of them would be sold for free and the ones which would be sold for loads of Money.

Thanks for your in-depth reply and examples Jamie. However, I'm not looking to argue around 'real world' figures to make my point here.

I'm simply using a form of reductionism (call it simplification if you're into maths) to illustrate that if my example could be proved to have an effect (I haven't essentially 'proved' it, since it hasn't happened or been tested in the real world, but hopefully this falls within the realms of common sense), then a less extreme example would have a similar though likely lesser effect.

There's only one independant variable here - gross spend. So manipulating this and only this would logically manipulate the dependant variable (success) to some degree.

I really have no reason to delve deeper to make this point, it's pure logic. IF you accept that in my example a team would not perform as well, THEN you must accept that in a similar example with more realistic figures, performance could be expected to affected accordingly.

net spend really has nothing to do with anything! every club has outgoings and incomings.. Jaimies articles have highlighted this. A high gross figure tends to demonstrate a clubs power more appropriately. Net spend theorists might have a point if we were consistently making money, which we arn't! the latter years may show this but at present it cant be claimed to be a sufficiently solid arguement. In my view teams in the upper echelons of the league have had spending power relatively at the same level, Chelsea being higher and maybe city will join this bracket soon,with Chelsea falling back.It is my opinion that under Benitez, Liverpool have come from a step behind to begin competing on a similar level to the original top 3, having spent not considerably more or less. This is a factor in my support. This years performance makes me doubt, but I still hold faith for the moment in the hope that next season will see an improvement, if not..!!Basically im saying there is reason to support him, and reason not to, I hope not to be lambasted for my views!

This is the stupidest argument ever. Jaimie you are clearly stupid. Net spend does make a huge difference. Case closed. I can't believe people have felt compelled to even respond to this line or argument.

So you're basically saying the value of our squad today, based on gross spend, is 267mill? But how about all the players that have left and been sold? If you added up all the transfer fees paid for the players we own today and gave us that figure as the value of the squad THEN nobody could argue. That would actually be a more accurate way to compare transfer spending with other clubs...

JW, thanks for the useful information. In my opinion, gross spend is an element that needs to be looked at alongside net spend (as gross measures the quanity/quality of players which can be brought, net how much money is actually invested by the club) and thirdly the cost/quality of the team at the start and the end of the years measured. This then starts to provide context to the quality of the signings that the manager has done.Another factor that you might want to consider is when the players are brought and sold in comparison as this provides a view on how much liquidity the club has. I suspect that Liverpool's liquidity now is much less and players must be sold before more can be brought, hindering the managers ability to sign players early and 'on the cheap'.The crux of the issue and why people cling to the net spend to support Rafa is to outline the lack of support by the club owners. To explain, the club has revenue streams e.g. from the fans or sponsorship and it's not being reinvested to the core product, (the team) but to actually service a debt the owners have landen the club with. This is directly draining the financial muscle of the club and the ability to sign more top quality players each season.

JR - and their under-acheiving managers have had to pay with their jobs. One constant in all of these net spend comparisons is that unless the clubs made significant improvements in the league with all the money being spent, the manager lost his job.

Rafa took over a team that finished 4th in the league...And finished his SIXTH season in charge, after spending a considerable amount, with the team 7th in the league...

I guess one second place finish in six years must indicate significant improvement?

I don't agree with rafas signings or tyle of play. But he has worked a minor miracle to accomplish what he has with such an average and boring bunch of players (players he brought to the club). We have been found out! it is as though opposing teams have been playing our reputation for the last few years. It is only this year that NO team has shown ANY respect for us, on the pitch, whatsoever. When we start off on an even keel mentally with opposing teams we rarely do well.

I hope he goes! If this was football manager and i had a 30 year old who could bring in 25mill i wouldn't think twice. Gerrard proved this season that his attitude is dispicable, I really can't stand to see his face anymore get him out.

That's absolute nonsense JK. The amount spent in five years is £267m, that is not the value of the squad over 5 years. You're a bright man JK but that is a ridiculous statement to make.

Obviously you don't agree with the net spend argument but it still has be considered in my opinion. I don't agree with the people that says that net spend is the only thing that matters. But I still think it is the best overall indicator of a club's financial sitiuation. It is quit lear in my opinion that Liverpool have to sell players to buy and that is shown by the net figures. If we could afford to keep players and not sell them to fund others would we not have kept our better players? Did we sell Bellamy and Luis Garcia to fund the Torres move or did H&G give us the money outright? Was Sissoko sold to pay for Mascherano? We won't know this for sure but it seems odd that we sell good players when we spend big money.

<span>"Spurs have a a much higher net spend over 5 years than Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea AND Manchester United.</span>

<span>According to the net-spend cult, this apparently means that Spurs must be the most successful team in the Premier League (!). After all, they spent more money than Chelsea and Man United so it it makes logical sense, right?"</span>

The above statement, particularly with reference to Spurs being the most successful team in the Premier League, is founded upon the idea that all the clubs began from the same position at the start of the period studied. I don't think anyone would agree that all clubs were equal in 2004, nor is it likely that any quantifiable measure would back up the assertion. They were 14th in the 2003-4 season, so it could be reasonably argued they had a lot of catching up to do.

However, that isn't to dismiss the idea that net spend receives too much focus. Your Chelsea example was particularly interesting, as the departure of players such as Bridge for a reported £12M and Robben for £25M gave them some tidy profits. The trouble is, I believe that both players *may* have been signed outside the period you have studied, which if true would have "gifted" Chelsea some cash-cows. Despite this, it is quite shocking to see who some of the big spenders have really been over the past few years.

Your figures are bogus mate - Spurs only recouping 47.8 mil last season?... We sold Berba, Keane and Defoe in that period...not to mention Zakora and a bunch of soap dodgers to the likes of Fulham.Do it again.

I'm not sure I completely grasp the argument being made here (perhaps, because I don't know that much about this 'net spend cult'). What are we trying to determine, exactly? Financial responsibility of the clubs? Correlations between transfer spending and success? Something else?

If we are arguing over which is more financially responsible from an accounting perspective, then it would seem that data on balancing the books are the more important statistics (on the surface, at least).

If we are arguing over which statistic is a better benchmark for success, then I'm a little confused as to how offering a sample of five select years of transfers and league results alone is useful. Obviously some of the players on the current squads were purchased before the 2004-05, therefore isolating a period seems somewhat arbitrary (yeah, I realize the whole point is to show Rafa's performance).

You can't necessarily use success before the manager arrived as a benchmark for the club's status either, since it is dependent on factors such as the player's ages, contracts, etc. For instance, a manager that inherits a league-winning team with an average player age of 30 would have to invest more in transfers than a manager that inherits a league-winning team with an average age of 25.

Players mature too, so a 10m 18 year old might not offer as much initially as a 10m 28 year old, but the former could still be the better long term investment (hence, Spurs' recent business model and their success in the past year).

So my point is: What is your point? Can 5 years of transfer data alone really tell us anything more than Spurs spent more (both gross and net) on transfers than Liverpool? Can it really be used to bolster either gross or net spending as effective models for success?

I'd be curious to see how the Portsmouths of the world would affect this debate too. I don't know what the actual numbers are, but I would guess that Portsmouth was a fairly high gross spending club around that same period. Now they face playing in the Championship.

Spurs sold Keane for £20m & bought him back for £16m (or there abouts). Gross spend was £16m net was -£4m. Squad was the same, ergo gross or net spend alone is the judge of nothing, but in that example net spend is more useful to determine the success of the transaction than gross spend.